2000 (8) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... inputs, when no declaration under Rule 57G was filed by them. 2. Shri P.R. Biswas, learned Consultant elaborating on his argument submits that as regard the first issue is concerned, television receivers were notified as one of the goods to which the provisions of Section 4A(2) shall apply w.e.f. 2-6-1998, vide Not. No. 18/98-C.E. (N.T.). Accordingly, they started paying duty under the said provisions, on their maximum retail price after availment of abatement as indicated in the said Notification. The Revenue, however, entertained a view that as the appellant had not declared the maximum retail price to them and they have not opted for payment of duty under the said Section, read with the Notifications in question, they are not entitle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id representation for condonation of delay filed under Rule 57G declaration is still pending before the Assistant Commissioner. As such, denial of Modvat credit on this ground was not justified. 3. We have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR for the Revenue who reiterates the reasoning of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the submissions made from both sides and have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced. Undisputedly, the television sets is mentioned as one of the declared items to which the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4A would apply w.e.f. 2-6-1998, vide Not. No. 18/98-C.E. (N.T.). There is no dispute about maximum retail price of the said goods. We do not find any justification in the observ....